User talk:Smilo Don

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] TheFinalClub.org links

Have you seen followed the link to the annotations of the Shakespeare plays? Those annotations were done by a person with a PhD from Harvard's English department. The line-by-line Macbeth commentary is probably better than anything available free or in-print. Furthermore, links to for-profit sites such as Sparknotes and Cliff's Notes remain. I don't particularly understand your objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmagliozzi (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates...

Hi Smilo, have a look at WP:CITET. This makes citations a lot easier. Cheers --Merbabu 03:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, citations such as these are of limited use. Such cites assume that everyone knows who "Ricklefs" is and that he only had one publication. Please cite the sources in full (with a strong preference for use of the templates above). cheers. --Merbabu 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I just ran out of steam. I have no interest or knowledge in the Deli Sultanate. I just created that thing with cut and pastes, so as to solve about 20 articles from linking to delicatessen. Dangling refs like those are very lame indeed. --Smilo Don 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you still don't use the WP:CITET templates? WHile not mandatory, they make it easier for you and other editors, and allow for strong standardisation. They are commonly used amongst the more serious and dedicated in the wider wikipedia community, and by all the regular Indonesia project editors. It's much easier to put in at the start than have someone else come in after you. thanks. --Merbabu 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu. I've just been too lazy to learn it. Thanks for the nudge. Oh, and thanks for cleaning up the refs on gotong royong and elsewhere. --Smilo Don 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just did the first on Megawati. Such a pain. Do you cut and paste the template from WP:Cite every time? Is there an easier way?? --Smilo Don 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gotong royong

Has a nafas of koentjaraningrat and clifford geertz's work - something most editors on this thing would not have even been born before it was passe and cynicised by most - I would have thought KKN would have had much more meaning for most. Satu Suro 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points, SatuSoro. I think Geertz is making a big comeback. There's a nice new English volume of Koentjaraningrat. I haven't read it yet, but it looks nice. Agreed that KKN should have a page in WP. KKN might fall easily from people's lips, but gotong royong is arguably more impt to everyday life. --Smilo Don 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kalau tinggal di indonesia - Jawa - satu suro - tak bisa soro - bulan yang pertama dan setiap tahun baru.... :)

Wah when I was living there it (GR) was redundant/cynicised/obsolete then - I am intrigued by your sticking to the importance - external enforced new order ideology as superficial as the pancasila propoganda sessions in the outer provinces to keep the intels flummoxed ? Cripes Koentj was drawing on the dutch written records of up to 40 years earlier and was as about as relevent as the 1957 elections (ie not) - and Geertzs work was completely dismissed by all the muslim publishing intellectuals and most ooutsider anthrops that I have ever read -so - I can see we will have to work on our sources very very carefully for all of this as I cannot see where you are getting your material/info - unless - one reads the early obscure work of palmier, or perhaps the early ward keeler - there might be some credence to the gotong royong superficial adherence - but even then it can be very hard to read into being a pervasive part of the public ideology of the orde baru - if we were doing a snapshot of parts of the bung karno era- maybe. oh well cheers Satu Suro 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz, Satu, you seem pretty cynical about gotong royong. It's an ancient concept in the region, not just an instrument of Sukarno and Soeharto. That's typical of institutions of power: they come along and claim organic ideas as their own, redefine them, and put them to work for themselves. And, in the process, said abuse can leave people cynical (as you note). BUT, that doesn't change the importance of the idea, BOTH as an integrated part of society and as an appropriated device of rule. The word might have been corrupted, but the practice is still vital. (E.g. funerals, weddings, work parties, communal buildings, public works, etc. etc. etc.)

Geertz, for all of his dated ideas and errors, is definitely staging a comeback in anthropology. There was a huge backlash against his stuff, including a lot of well-founded critique, but folks are revisiting his work now. His is a huge body of work: some terribly dated, some still very worthwhile. Don't discount him. --Smilo Don 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyncism? I lived in the middle of central java in the mid 90's :) . I still like the b and w photo of hildred geertz in dancing classes in Yogya towering over the javanese like the way the dutch did - ok I cannot wait to see your sources or cites to back it up - good luck! Satu Suro 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a very legit case to be made that Sukarno and Soeharto manufactured the "ancient" quality of gotong royong. I've seen some scholarly cynicism on that one. But, for me, the political theft and hyperbole around gotong royong does not reduce its vitality in everyday life, whether or not the term is ancient, and whether or not people bother with it outside of state discourse. Call it gotong royong or call it something else. But when an earthquake happens, or when terraced rice paddies allocate water, or when some dude needs help fixing his motorbike, there's a lot of mutual aid going around. It's so obvious and so common-sensicle, that we forget it's there. Anyway, gotong royong could stand some more editing, if you're up for it. --Smilo Don 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Mughayat Syah

Actually, Ali Mughayat Syah did conquer Deli, Pedir, and Pasai, 100 years before Iskandar Muda. Or that's what's in Ricklefs, anyway. I think in the hundred years after his reign, some of the territories were lost, and Iskandar Muda reconquered Deli in 1612 (and successfully took Aru). Apparently Ali Mughayat Syah was quite the conqueror in his own right, although perhaps he has a smaller reputation because historical records are scantier that far back. (The 1824 was a silly typo that somehow nobody had noticed yet; it was 1524.) Rigadoun (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rigadoun ! You're right--I just got out my Ricklefs. I should have checked before changing. My bad. That one typo threw me--I started to think the whole little episode (spanning a few WP articles) had been botched. Glad to see it's more-or-less on the level. I was also thrown by the fact that Ali M. Syah AND Iskandar Muda conquered the Deli sultanate. I naively thought that it was a steady expansion. We probably should note the expansion/contraction/expansion in there. It still needs work. Anyway, thanks for setting the record straight, Rigadoun . --Smilo Don 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] well worth a read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia/Assessment#Quality_scale Satu Suro 09:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Seemed to me that gotong royong on that scale was more a "B" than a "start," since a B can be missing info. I think it has the basics, so I put "B" by the scale. It's ultimately pretty subjective. At the risk of being punny, one bloke's stub is another's start.--Smilo Don 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - the pun in australia would be even worse seeing the stubbie is the container of the amber fluid - however some eds do make a practice of not assessing their own arts - Satu Suro 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok - rather than twiddling

Re:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Majapahit_Empire&action=edit&section=14

There already is in wikipedia a comprehensive set of guides to inter-personal conduct between editors - where either you might raise the ire or yours is risen - it is at WP:AGF WP:Wikiquette and WP:Civility and there really is no need to tinkle with 'Be nice' - there are many parts of policy that assume a particular style of behaviour has occured already on this rather odd place - and the items are in place. 'Be nice' is indeed anachronistic and probably redundant in the wiki world - it is already dealt with there in the items mentioned above - you dont like someone else or their ideas - best to walk away - edit wars and WP:PA only lead you into the dark side of wikipedia and no its not larsens cartoons :( or derrida's writings for that matter :/ Satu Suro 07:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, one and all, Satu. I'm satisfied with the way things have progressed. Still trying to figure out was WP "is." I appreciate your sagacity. Well earned, no doubt, from time spent tending the WP crops. --Smilo Don 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought for the day--

One of the more interesting things is some sort of almost mappable terrain on WP. Some WP "space" is owned, some colonized, some seized by hostile takeover, some abandoned, and a lot of no-man's-land. A host of ideologies emerge in these 'spaces,' recapitulating parallel land use politics in the "real world." That is, some people have ownership ideologies based on how much one works or "improves" the land (a classic discourse of Euro-White colonialism)... getting into private property. Some editors feel there are resources enough for all (more your Atlantic Coast Indians' attitude in, say, Massachusetts)... more your hunter-gatherer communalism, or your Proudhon-Kropotkin-anarchist type of orientation. (We might say there is corresponding "political-economy" of foragers, horticulturalists, capitalists, etc.) In a perfect WP, there'd be a key difference: the foragers would be on equal footing with the "advanced" industrialists--they'd have the same population, and they couldn't be overwhelmed by superior militaries or economies. Oddly enough, the "real world" comes in here (as is nicely described in WP:Bias): the majority of editors is probably "White," "Western," "male," "heterosexual," and more or less in favor of private-property, ownership via "improvement," "globalization," "democracy," "free trade," "intellectual property rights," and "development." With superior numbers (i.e. "force") such a POV, however well-intentioned, can colonize, consolidate, expand, and terraform the WP lands in their image. --Smilo Don 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No

minor changes, incl. "Indo" instead of Eurasian (and link). Americanized spellings--is that the WP norm American cultural imperialism might invade the minds of the world - but respect the anglo variations that we favour in the other part in the english speaking other half :) In this case - Indonesian articles have the indonesian preferences/usages unless otherwise indicated Satu Suro 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Imperial favouritism, eh whot? Wuzn't sure, given WP's US origin and drive toward standardization. Thanks for the tip, Satu. Smilo Don 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

when in indonesia do as the indonesians do, when in oztrylia do as the oz do - in fact is part of the WP:MOS from memory :) Satu Suro 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tautologist anthropologists

Having been trained as one I would never join a group of them - bit like librarians (of which i have been as well) collectively a very dangerous species when gathered in a confined space - just a point - you and most member of the fledgling project have put the project page and the members page on your user pages - redundant as a football commentator saying its a goal its a goal its a goal - and its only one. The project page addition is of no functional use to anyone including your honourable selves and an indicator no one in the group knows how to do the project management very well :( Satu Suro 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes--WPAnthro is a shockingly abysmal Wiki-project thus far. I don't know the mechanics of WP: I'm assuming that if I label Talk pages with the project, eventually some program will recognize the template? I'm surprised the project is off to such a terrible start, but I don't have time to take it on. Maybe its sad state will chagrin some to embrace the cause. Smilo Don 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Having spent the day tagging monty python articles and finding king arthur project tags preceding me at every article - and trying to get used to the workings of commons - its good night from him and good night from him - i would say some WP (wiki project) savvy knight in white armour will come save the day one day :/Satu Suro 13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be liberating to be on my own in WPAnthro, but also isolating. One of the nice things about WPINdnesia is that there are a bunch of active editors who know Indonesia really well. For example, I just looked at User:Indon's adds to Nagarakretagama and Majapahit and I feel heartened by the expert collaboration. User:Merbabu and User:Rigadoun have being doing some great historical work. And you, Satu, are contributing all over the virtual archipelago. I still feel like there's a pro-"development" bias--and a lot of other biases too, but... Still, given the power and knowledge of the active editors it feels like there's a chance on WPIndo (as opposed to Anthro) to get things done, to bring out one another's strengths, to build a knowledge base for the world to see. Smilo Don 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Hello, I noticed you added a see also section to mutualism. There is already one there, however, above the references. This is where see also normally appears. See this for a little more about see also sections, if you haven't already read it. Richard001 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I thank you Smilo Don very much for your placing such respectful tags 'WikiIndonesia Project' and 'WikiPhilosophy Project' on my biography. Wish i can do lots in those projects FHidayat 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bookchin as green anarchist

Seems to me that Bookchin is a good example of an green anarchist. He's prominently noted on the page for Green anarchism and his Ecology of Freedom is often cited as a key text for the field. Cheers, --Dylanfly 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Janet Biehl's "Murray Bookchin's Break with Anarchism"? Best wishes, --TouristPhilosopher 16 October 2007

My sense is that Bookchin was an anarchist, published as an anarchist, contributed to anarchist theory, then decided (after many books) that there were better directions for society. But those late conclusions in life don't invalidate his earlier relationship to green anarchism. Cheers, Smilo Don 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To my mind he was an anarchist. The problem is that the people who call themselves anarchists today don't agree with me, with you or/and with Bookchin. Bookchin call them life-style anarchists. I agree with him. So for me its ok to call him a green anarchist but its real confused still call him anarchist after all his "fights" against the irrational and life-style trends of anarchism. I believe that Bookchin's anarchism has nothing to do with today's anarchism. So if we call Bookchin an (green) anarchist we have to find another label for today's "anarchistic" trends. No meaning. --TouristPhilosopher 18 October 2007

[edit] Indonesian collaborationists categ

Hey, thanks for keeping the gate. Perhaps you might want to know about the famous sockpuppeter DavidYork71. The user KeepingFactsReal who created the Indonesian collaborationists categ has similar contributions with DY71's puppets, e.g. Proudlyhumble07 (see his contributions). So just to let you know. Keep up the good work! ;-) — Indon (reply) — 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion

Hi, I have been working on this controversial article, if you have any time I would be grateful if you could take a look. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guided Democracy (1957-1965)

Thanks for finding the "controversial" reference. My only problem was the verifiability - I did grit my teeth slightly when reverting it :-) Incidentally, arguably the original editor I reverted was verging on POV the other way by gracing the "Act Free of Choice" [sic] with the word "referendum". By the way, I see all has gone quiet on the Cipinang Jail article. I actually know quite a bit about it having visited a friend there on numerous occassions, but it's all original research of course. And yes, it is bad. Regards Davidelit (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I just e-mailed you Davidelit (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Michael Ball(fashion mogul)

A tag has been placed on Michael Ball(fashion mogul) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- pb30<talk> 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. -- pb30<talk> 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The speedy happened seconds after the start of the article, so I thought it was a robot. Smilo Don (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It looked like no one went to the trouble of re-adding it, so I did that. In the future, use {{hangon}} instead. --Thin boy 00 @224, i.e. 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Availability for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology/Collaboration_of_the_month

The probable sorry state of 'core anthropology' articles on Wikipedia has been recently identified here

As a self-nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology member, I thought I'd check on your interest and willingness to see anthropology better represented on Wikipedia? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S&H

I too am trying to keep it down to size; we have a new enthusiast. But I really think silent generation" is a term that can be supported otherwise than from them/. Lets just keep that article down to size as wellDGG (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castoriadis

Dear Smilo Don Congratulations on you Castoriadis editings, this is a great contribution. I wonder if you know this, but I think that he was married to the prominent psychoanalyst Piera Aulagnier. Piera Aulagnier had important contributions to psychoanalysis and I remember knowing that both of them printed some significant theoretical material together. I wonder if you wish to check on that, and believe that it will be a good idea to add some lines on this, and references if you find any, in case my knowledge is indeed correct. What do you say? best, Doraannao (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Dear Smilo Don, Thanks for your reply in my page. The reason this is interesting is because they developed some theory together, and this is relevant to his intellectual theory development. I will check this one day and will let you know some references that might be of value to add. All best wishes, Doraannao (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Michael Ball (fashion mogul)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael Ball (fashion mogul), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael Ball (fashion mogul) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael Ball (fashion mogul), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chattanooga choo choo

Please could you find somewhere other than an indonesian article talk page to work out your displeasure at labels that have been in use for 50 years - if you think they are inappropariate - please go write the book - it really does not help the advancement of the article or the issues related - I am sure if you have those POV problems - then - really - your book or article will be more satisfying than trying to change the terminology in an article like that in wikipedia - it is a label or hook - if we got into what seems to be a form of political correctness about every article in the indonesia project we might as well go home and write our books too - they are in the end just articles. Satu Suro 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we might take the humorous academic approach to some issues like this with - Its great music - but can you dance to it? (viz you can dance to chatanoggo choo choo - but can we dance to angst about a label?) - its might be intellectually satisfying to question all the labels that we use in the encyclopedia - but its like asking the caterpillar to count its legs - in the end counterproductive Satu Suro 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If this was a bulletin board, blog or anything but wikipedia - I would accept your response - it is an online encyclopedia - we do not re-invent the wheel for whims - thanks for going to the trouble to outline your position in 1000 words which could have taken 100 - lets leave it at indonesia and struggle with more important issues - cheers Satu Suro 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After spending time studying some issues and living amongst them in indonesia I do not consider myself in any way either an expert or authority and i have no position to stake a claim as to the knowledge required to ascertain some of the complex issues that have evolve in the malaysian archipelago (sic) over the last 100 years - or for that matter 400 - I am simply saying this is an online encyclopedia - it requires 'labels' however difficult they might be for the more intellectually curious as to their evolution and practice - and in most cases it is not the role of any encyclopedia to either 'rock the boat' or delineate challenges to the general practice - you have clearly misread the purpose of this location - I still say (if not repeat) - such an interest as yours is mislpaced - here is not the place Satu Suro 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On further thought - you are most welcome - if you can find the sources to back it up to create an article - 'Regional constructs of South East Asia - as the notion of /idea of south east asia has had at least one book written about the concept - and I am sure the fellow wikipedia editors from malaysia and indonesia would just love to see their identities deconstructed a la smilo don - :| - but I would not support or endorse such a venture unless it specificaly had lots of in article citations and correct wikipedia format and style - if you are up to it it might solve your problem and create an article as well Satu Suro 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A very good lead would be the rather inconsequential articles (either because of lack of citations on one and the paucity of information in the other) of South East Asia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_in_Asia - neither have the reflexivity that you exhibit - you could counter your ideas against those two and it would be a good contribution to the encyclopedia Satu Suro 01:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Petition of Fifty

Hi there. I got hold of a book on the Petition of Fifty and decided to write the article seeing as it is important and there seems to be no other English translation of the petition on the internet. I was chasing the links and spotted your user page. Sorry for getting there before you :-) While the article now has the text of the original and the official response, I do not have any paper sources for the public reaction and information about what happened to the people who signed the document. The Abdul Haris Nasution article does mention it, but there are no references. Do you have anything that would make the article more comprehensive? Regards Davidelit (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boskop Man

Hi. If you happen to agree with my comment, I'll be happly to delete everything but the original comment.

Respectfully, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balagangadhara

The reference you deleted was of a peer reviewed article in the Thomson Social Science Citation Index. The scholar whose notability you question has made an important contribution to post-colonial analyses of Hinduism. I have therefore undone your edit. One of the external links which you deleted concerns a lively and highly active internet discussion board that discusses the work of the author to which the page is devoted. It enjoys contributions from specialists and lay men, and can hardly be called a 'trivium.' I have put the link back.

As for the promotional tone of the wiki page, it was not my intention to promote anyone, but your comment is noted. I am revising the article.

Many thanks,

--Dindimus (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers...

Hello there. Long time no see. Thanks for your additions to the "revival" article. Nice to see them well sourced - not many people do. As long as we are not using the additions to advance a position, and are being completely neutral and not giving one point of view excessive attention, we will all be laughing, so to speak. This article is indeed long over due for work. --Merbabu (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] system justification and progress trap

See my second comment about deletion over at the first article. The second article has problems also and needs a banner too... maybe WP:COI and makring for deletion also... I would look forward to your help and I am prepared to baby sit it and do the work for you. Regards Mattjs (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing doing

So you are in Java at the moment? Satu Suro 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My wife indeed got the last one mentioned - not a pleasant experience (her doctor friends literally ran away from her - they didnt want the blame if she died :) - you are gonna have to put up with me giving you a really hard time on the articles - I am increasingly short on areas that have 'notions' rather than events - so you better be big and take it in good faith, as the indonesian project is increasingly looking like a vast collection of stubs and list of lists with red links (indonesan speakers with sedikit inggeris tambah tambahan setiap hari) and my re-working some arts that I have done is about to start again - so gird your sarong (?) and find a cite or put up - as for pushing my mate merle off a page - show me a foreigner with 40 years experience of central java who can outdo him and i'll listen with interest - seeing you are not identifying where you are - enjoy the afternoon rain - :) Satu Suro 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite concerned that the generalisations in the 'awakening' article are no where near the historical reality - however my tracking down cites means there will be some delay before I am prepared to comment on the issues there Satu Suro 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So you

Are stuck somewhere in java with a copy of vickers? I am sure poor adrian wouldnt like the exposure in that way - using one source (like using only one like ricklefs for a whole article) smells of all the same criticisms you have of Indonesia at the best of times - I am sure you are not a monomaniac - but it sure looks like it when you stack one author for a whole article? And to use a balinese specialist for an article about golkar smells even weirder Satu Suro 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to echoing New Years Day's comments above, my uninvited suggestion is to maybe show a tad more care on occasion in how you use a source. Simply adding a cite to an author's POV still makes it a POV, whether quoted or paraphrased. While Vickers is an esteemed expert (particularly on Bali) and the book in questions is excellent (I've used it myself a fair bit in wikipedia), it is loaded with a lot of opinion and one-sidedness. While these are indeed very reasonable opinions and sides, they are still opinions and view points and thus needed to be handled very carefully; perhaps a tad more carefully than you have in some places. Remember, wikipedia (unlike Vickers, or whoever) is not here to put forward a position, rather fact. It's not an essay or argument.

Also, you may want to be careful about simply copying the text out almost word for word. I know myself it's sometimes hard not too and not sound awkward, but its a serious copyright issue. I've noticed these issues over a few articles of late. regards --Merbabu (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Having met adrian at a conference and having read most of his stuff in rima over the decades I will wonder about your response rather than reply to it - here we are once again stuck in java with a single book again - if you have the more obscure stuff maybe you should try some new arts we can have a look at and enjoy and perhaps comment on as well.

The thing is if, lets say for example sake just if you have read some of the ethnographers work of the last thirty years, you might realise that the javanese and the ethnographers have had as an interesting time as the balinese and their interlopers (there is nothing on wikipedia yet about the anthros and their experience of bali over time) (one is always cognisant of the larsen far side cartoon with the natives calling out - quick move the tv out the anthropologist is coming) to accept any one secondary source as a main source is fraught with issues - so i really dont think despite your assertion to merbabu and i - anywhere near off the hook yet - I'd say dig up your obscure texts and give us a go - I am not convinced yet at all - Satu Suro 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

SBY and presidency - so do it - noting what and how the project has coped with sukarno and suharto and their various mens of mucking about over time - you have a precedent - remember to keep to V and RS otherwise it will get a lot of flack - no just using one source though - leaders in the lovely place that you are in are tantamount to be either saints or living gods so when you start tampering with their icons and their descriptions expect no mercy Satu Suro 08:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For heavens sake are you a deadhead hippie, totally lost academic or a misguided american tourist accidentally in Java dying of dengue? - please I do not use even half the lingo you are throwing at me - (1) I do not agree with your assertions that you can do what you like from one source - regardless of whether it expands an article (2) I had suggested you try what you claim are books of things more obscure (3) I am about to go off for at least 5 hours so will not be responding to any replies to this (4) If you want to try to do something for the WP Indonesia english project - either start new articles that dont exist yet - it would be more interesting than to have to cope with what is happening at the moment Satu Suro 08:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, i think you missed my point (or was it that I missed yours?). No one is doubting Vickers as a reliable source. As I said, I've used it a lot on WP and will most likely continue to do so. It is the way it is being used on occasion, not that it is used. Just because its sourced, doesn't automatically make it WP material. I think enough explanation has been given, maybe the explanations just needs to be reviewed. LP usage is another issue, that's been discussed before. No-one's pretending it's ideal, but it nothing provided was a disaster (to my knowledge), and it has had it's (very good) uses which made significant improvements, not panaceas.

Also, no need to spread a conversation over 3 user pages. Just use this page. Don't worry, it will be checked. :-)

PS, who said anything about an "ivory tower"? Experienced editor's know to take other editor's pronouncements of their background with a grain of salt. (and that's with or without evidence that undermines such pronouncements). --Merbabu (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Merbabu. I think we're good. My block Vickers block quote on Pertamina was hasty and sloppy, and I think you edited it properly. I do think that on, say, Pertamina, it's vital to detail its history at the center of Indonesia's biggest ever financial scandal--it is one of INdonesia's most significant fiscal events of all time (hard for us 1st worlders to appreciate, as our nation's are more capable of absorbing/). And similarly, I think Golkar needs to have stuff on thuggery and the like. It's a part of Golkar's history, whatever one feels about it.

I guess I agree too about LP: one uses what decent sources one has at hand... if others come forward with better sources, than so much the better. Putting some Vickers down is helps in the short run, at least, particularly on an un-ref'd, poorly written article like Golkar. I think I helped get that piece out of the ditch.

I guess my final thought, before I grab some take-out and head home, is that you might have some more faith in my edits in terms of POV. With articles like Pertamina and Golkar, corruption isn't POV-pushing, it's basic to the history, right? If I understand you correctly, you might agree with that, provided the form/citations/style are proper. I just haven't heard you agree that, in these two cases, corruption is a basic to the history. So, for my taste, you might say "true about KKN, but bad quote chosen" or something like that. Anyway, have a nice evening. Smilo Don (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Certain triggers

You are most welcome to read the revert, as no doubt your curiosity will lead you to it.

Wikipedia thrives on the potential of a cooperative community and the potential and promises that good negotiations skills can create - I am prepared to leave you alone on your odd language usage and your irregularities from correct WP principles. However...

(1) as for asking Merbabu whether your usage of a single source is ok with him - he is not the final arbiter in the matter at all - correct MOS of WP English is that we use various sources and we make every effort not to rely on any one source - it is a community based standard - not one editors

You have no idea about what I personally know or dont know about Java - please do not make any fanciful assumptions - just get on with editing and help make wikipedia a better place.

I will endevour to not try what is obvious alien sense of humour with you at all again - it clearly misses the mark.

Best of luck - I genuinely wanted to see if you were going to do with your more obscure books texts you said you had - but Satu Suro 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)